The problem is that the foxes are guarding the henhouse. It's naive to expect a police force and administrators who get their paychecks from Baylor have any vested interest in investigating and adjudicating cases which will shed bad light on the school, and to have this cloaked in Title IX rhetoric is ridiculous when it's a matter of criminal law. All of these cases need to be turned over to either the state police or federal investigators.

When will people think it is finally OK to ask why Kim Mulkey - who could have pretty much any open job she wanted - continues to work to support this evil organization?

I've been asking that ever since the whole story broke. How can she justify recruiting young women into this evil place? I guess it's like the line in the song--"There is none so blind as (s)he who will not see."

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

Those are not the words of a coach who is contrite about her University.

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.

That's such bullshit.

The standard whine "Waaaaah.... everybody's picking on us. Everybody else does it too. Everybody else is just as bad."

No. No they're not. Everybody else does NOT do it too. Everybody else is NOT just as bad.

This is an enormous, long-standing, huge scale systemic problem at Baylor that permeates the entire organization clear to the highest reaches of the executive suite. That some other schools might have an isolated incident once every ten years does not put them even close to being in the same league as Baylor or even begin to support the nonsense that Baylor is "no different."

Baylor is all by itself at the top of the mountain as a total disgrace. Nobody's just "moving on" regardless of how little Kim cares about the victims, is " tired of hearing it", and wishes it would just all go away.

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.

That's such bullshit.

The standard whine "Waaaaah.... everybody's picking on us. Everybody else does it too. Everybody else is just as bad."

No. No they're not. Everybody else does NOT do it too. Everybody else is NOT just as bad.

This is an enormous, long-standing, huge scale systemic problem at Baylor that permeates the entire organization clear to the highest reaches of the executive suite. That some other schools might have an isolated incident once every ten years does not put them even close to being in the same league as Baylor or even begin to support the nonsense that Baylor is "no different."

Baylor is all by itself at the top of the mountain as a total disgrace. Nobody's just "moving on" regardless of how little Kim cares about the victims, is " tired of hearing it", and wishes it would just all go away.

Well, for once we're on the same page Art.. The place is a damn disgrace. My grandchildren have been informed by their mothers that it is off the table for consideration as a college, athletically or scholastically. There's only one other one in that category right now.

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

Here's some interestingFood For Thought, for all of you'ns that feel the need to hate on Baylor and/or Kim:

Quote:

Campus Sexual assault-
􀁹 One in 5 women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college (i).
􀁹 More than 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report the assault (c)
􀁹 63.3% of men at one university who self-reported acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeat rapes (j)

Crime reports-
􀁹 Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police (o).
Only 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the authorities (g).

This is NOT Baylor's problem alone. They are not unique. Many of you are showing how your bias takes you all the way down the primrose path of condemnation. Hate is so ugly, isn't it? Don't be part of it.

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.

That's such bullshit.

The standard whine "Waaaaah.... everybody's picking on us. Everybody else does it too. Everybody else is just as bad."

No. No they're not. Everybody else does NOT do it too. Everybody else is NOT just as bad.

This is an enormous, long-standing, huge scale systemic problem at Baylor that permeates the entire organization clear to the highest reaches of the executive suite. That some other schools might have an isolated incident once every ten years does not put them even close to being in the same league as Baylor or even begin to support the nonsense that Baylor is "no different."

Baylor is all by itself at the top of the mountain as a total disgrace. Nobody's just "moving on" regardless of how little Kim cares about the victims, is " tired of hearing it", and wishes it would just all go away.

Well, for once we're on the same page Art.. The place is a damn disgrace. My grandchildren have been informed by their mothers that it is off the table for consideration as a college, athletically or scholastically. There's only one other one in that category right now.

Here's some interestingFood For Thought, for all of you'ns that feel the need to hate on Baylor and/or Kim:

Quote:

Campus Sexual assault-
􀁹 One in 5 women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college (i).
􀁹 More than 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report the assault (c)
􀁹 63.3% of men at one university who self-reported acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeat rapes (j)

Crime reports-
􀁹 Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police (o).
Only 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the authorities (g).

This is NOT Baylor's problem alone. They are not unique. Many of you are showing how your bias takes you all the way down the primrose path of condemnation. Hate is so ugly, isn't it? Don't be part of it.

I don't think anyone is saying that this is isolated to Baylor alone. Unfortunately, there are these types of things occurring all across the country. However, the big difference here is that these crimes have actually been reported to Baylor reps and yet nothing is changing. It's pretty hard to hold other schools/cities/states/etc accountable if these crimes aren't reported, which you clearly showed how few actually are. It's very disheartening when these victims actually do come forward yet nothing really seems to be done to stop the same events happening in the future. That appears to be the case at Baylor.

Every city has crime -- some cities have more crime than others. Some cities have corrupt and inefficient police departments. Some do the best job they can with the tools at their command.

Baylor football was a disgrace under Art Briles -- to say that, oh, Cal is just as bad is simply ridiculous. Sure every Power 5 program bends the rules here and there, just as there's crime in every city, but please ...

And Baylor's official policy against lesbians is an affront to women's basketball. Kim Mulkey clearly doesn't care about that blatant hypocrisy, and that's her choice, but, again, to put Baylor in the same category as the other Power 5 schools is simply willful ignorance.

If there is one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics, it is Baylor ... and that's saying something, considering the competition.

KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”

I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.

That's such bullshit.

The standard whine "Waaaaah.... everybody's picking on us. Everybody else does it too. Everybody else is just as bad."

No. No they're not. Everybody else does NOT do it too. Everybody else is NOT just as bad.

This is an enormous, long-standing, huge scale systemic problem at Baylor that permeates the entire organization clear to the highest reaches of the executive suite. That some other schools might have an isolated incident once every ten years does not put them even close to being in the same league as Baylor or even begin to support the nonsense that Baylor is "no different."

Baylor is all by itself at the top of the mountain as a total disgrace. Nobody's just "moving on" regardless of how little Kim cares about the victims, is " tired of hearing it", and wishes it would just all go away.

Well, for once we're on the same page Art.. The place is a damn disgrace. My grandchildren have been informed by their mothers that it is off the table for consideration as a college, athletically or scholastically. There's only one other one in that category right now.

do tell!

The other one is, sad to say, MTSU (Middle Tennessee State). It has mostly to do with the climate of racism in the city of Murfreesboro as all of my grandchildren except the oldest who is of different parentage (my son's child) are multiracial. However, there is also a certain climate on campus that my daughter doesn't want her kids exposed to.

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

Every city has crime -- some cities have more crime than others. Some cities have corrupt and inefficient police departments. Some do the best job they can with the tools at their command.

Baylor football was a disgrace under Art Briles -- to say that, oh, Cal is just as bad is simply ridiculous. Sure every Power 5 program bends the rules here and there, just as there's crime in every city, but please ...

And Baylor's official policy against lesbians is an affront to women's basketball. Kim Mulkey clearly doesn't care about that blatant hypocrisy, and that's her choice, but, again, to put Baylor in the same category as the other Power 5 schools is simply willful ignorance.

If there is one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics, it is Baylor ... and that's saying something, considering the competition.

^^^^ THIS^^^^^^

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

Every city has crime -- some cities have more crime than others. Some cities have corrupt and inefficient police departments. Some do the best job they can with the tools at their command.

Baylor football was a disgrace under Art Briles -- to say that, oh, Cal is just as bad is simply ridiculous. Sure every Power 5 program bends the rules here and there, just as there's crime in every city, but please ...

And Baylor's official policy against lesbians is an affront to women's basketball. Kim Mulkey clearly doesn't care about that blatant hypocrisy, and that's her choice, but, again, to put Baylor in the same category as the other Power 5 schools is simply willful ignorance.

If there is one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics, it is Baylor ... and that's saying something, considering the competition.

Exactly. For some reason the women's basketball community has been oh so happy to ignore the policies about lesbians. Go back to that Emily Neiman article from several years ago. Listen to the things Brittany Griner has said about it.

Now, the women's basketball community seems to willing to overlook the institution's active role in hiding and enabling sexual assault.

Kim Mulkey's choice to participate in and support these practices should make her a pariah in the women's basketball community. For the life of me, I will never understand the way people have continued to look the other way.

On and on and on, it doesn't matter where you look. Four schools randomly selected and look what google found for me, and I know my own alma mater has had the same problems. Baylor may be an outlier with an enormous, egregious number of sexual assaults, but the pattern of assault and minimal response or outright coverups by the school is nationwide.

On and on and on, it doesn't matter where you look. Four schools randomly selected and look what google found for me, and I know my own alma mater has had the same problems. Baylor may be an outlier with an enormous, egregious number of sexual assaults, but the pattern of assault and minimal response or outright coverups by the school is nationwide.

Has anyone said that it isn't an issue around the country? Because I certainly haven't interpreted any poster comments to indicate they think sexual assaults are only happening at Baylor. Pretty sure we are all very much aware of the issue and understand that it is happening all over the country and actually all over the world.

Seems to me, again, that Baylor (and the athletic department) appears to be behaving like an ostrich and sticking their collective heads in the sand. At least the Vanderbilt article refers to former student-athletes (football players).

If there is one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics, it is Baylor ... and that's saying something, considering the competition.

Clay, I make every concession to your far more vast knowledge of the scholastic/athletic 'scene'. I. Don't. Know. Baylor. I have never been there, nor do I know anyone from there.

However, to say "one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics....is Baylor" also epitomizes how The Public can be led and manipulated by The Media to believe Who/What is "The Very Worst" at anything.

Who here HAS been to Baylor, or has a close acquaintance that has been there and experienced the terrible things we read of?

I have no reason to believe that the reports are false OR true as stated. AND Baylor deserves their condemnation, if true. But I still say it's a slippery slope to single them out as deserving of ALL the hatred, etc.

Kim? Despite her connections to this, she HAS had positive impact on the game we love. Should she adopt a more militant stance against the wrongs? I'd hope so, but I cannot judge her position, either....certainly not as long as she is not directly implicated as a perpetrator of the misdeeds or their cover-ups.

My entire point here is simple: Don't shy away from discussion and sharing of news here, but does it have to be so utterly condemning, or focused on one individual? The Hate Bandwagon is alluring.

On and on and on, it doesn't matter where you look. Four schools randomly selected and look what google found for me, and I know my own alma mater has had the same problems. Baylor may be an outlier with an enormous, egregious number of sexual assaults, but the pattern of assault and minimal response or outright coverups by the school is nationwide.

Has anyone said that it isn't an issue around the country? Because I certainly haven't interpreted any poster comments to indicate they think sexual assaults are only happening at Baylor. Pretty sure we are all very much aware of the issue and understand that it is happening all over the country and actually all over the world.

Seems to me, again, that Baylor (and the athletic department) appears to be behaving like an ostrich and sticking their collective heads in the sand. At least the Vanderbilt article refers to former student-athletes (football players).

If there is one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics, it is Baylor ... and that's saying something, considering the competition.

Clay, I make every concession to your far more vast knowledge of the scholastic/athletic 'scene'. I. Don't. Know. Baylor. I have never been there, nor do I know anyone from there.

However, to say "one school that epitomizes the hypocrisy and corruption of college athletics....is Baylor" also epitomizes how The Public can be led and manipulated by The Media to believe Who/What is "The Very Worst" at anything.

Who here HAS been to Baylor, or has a close acquaintance that has been there and experienced the terrible things we read of?

I have no reason to believe that the reports are false OR true as stated. AND Baylor deserves their condemnation, if true. But I still say it's a slippery slope to single them out as deserving of ALL the hatred, etc.

Kim? Despite her connections to this, she HAS had positive impact on the game we love. Should she adopt a more militant stance against the wrongs? I'd hope so, but I cannot judge her position, either....certainly not as long as she is not directly implicated as a perpetrator of the misdeeds or their cover-ups.

My entire point here is simple: Don't shy away from discussion and sharing of news here, but does it have to be so utterly condemning, or focused on one individual? The Hate Bandwagon is alluring.

Good points ... and I have never been to Waco. (Nor do I have any plans to do so, despite Chip and Joanna.)

But for the moment, let's just assume that the publicity, good or bad, surrounding Power 5 schools is pretty much equal. That is to say, if the good is overblown and the bad swept under the rug at School A, Schools B-ZZZ receive the same treatment.

Now, Baylor is the big cheese in a small town, so my experience suggests that Baylor's local press is somewhat more fawning than usual. And Baylor is a private school, so its records are harder to access.

But again, let's say Baylor is getting the same media scrutiny as Cal or Nebraska or Michigan State.

Baylor is a lot worse. Baylor's list of reported infractions is unassaillably one of the worst in the NCAA.

And how many universities prohibit certain kinds of sexual behavior as part of their institutional rules, and consider them sinful?

SEC football is basically a professional sport, and many up-and-comer mid-majors will recruit some bad apples and never make them go to class. Some schools have very homophobic campus cultures too.

But nobody has done what Baylor has done, and what Baylor continues to do. To say that oh, Harvard has a problem with sexual activity is undeniably true, but there are murders in every major city in the country -- it's just that Chicago has a lot more of them. So is Chicago then the same as a city with half the murder rate? Are Harvard or the other schools you cite at the same level as Baylor? Does their football coach say, when told of a female student's accusations, something along the lines of "She's hanging with some bad dudes" -- and be referring to players he recruited?

To solve a problem, one must first admit there's a problem. Baylor has two huge problems, and seems determined not to deal with either one.

Per the 2015 data on the US Dept of Education website, Baylor's number of reported rapes per 1000 students is slightly lower than Brown's or UConn's, and far below Davidson's or Colgate's. The problem, of course, is that the number of reported rapes likely does not reflect the actual number at all.
You can look up any school's here. https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/#/compare/search

I think it's the WAY Baylor is "dealing" (or not dealing) with the incidents, plus their oh-so-sanctimonious attitude and "Christian" pose, that irritates people. That goes for the way they shove their lesbian players under the rug, too.

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

IMHO, Baylor, its own police dept, and its Title IX office shouldn't be the entities responsible for dealing with any of this. Sexual assault is a criminal offense. An independent law enforcement agency should be dealing with it, and the perpetrators should be going to jail, not being suspended for a semester by some college honor court.

IMHO, Baylor, its own police dept, and its Title IX office shouldn't be the entities responsible for dealing with any of this. Sexual assault is a criminal offense. An independent law enforcement agency should be dealing with it, and the perpetrators should be going to jail, not being suspended for a semester by some college honor court.

Would it be much different if the town of Waco handled it? Remember, this was the police force that opened fire with automatic weapons on those motorcyclists, killing many. Have any charges ever been filed against anyone for that?

Baylor is probably responsible for a good deal of the economy of Waco and as a non-profit they don't pay any taxes to Waco while the cost of maintaining a police force for the school has to run into the millions/year. That's the reality.

I think it is wise to stay away from terms like "worst" as it relates to an entire program. But it is quite instructive to look at how schools react to the terrible excesses that go on at many institutions. Baylor's handling of the Art Briles mess was abysmal, and this newest lawsuit seems to be further proof that the leaders of the school value their sports programs over the safety of women on campus. Florida St. did not distinguish itself in the Jameis Winston case. Penn St. had the Rene Portland problem long before anyone knew about Jerry Sandusky. Harvard and Brown have been mentioned for higher rape numbers in large part because they have been proactive in improving the conditions for reporting. The problems are everywhere, the solutions are very difficult, but if there is any chance of addressing them it has to be done in the light of day. And in this regard Baylor continues to be one of the darkest places around.

When will people think it is finally OK to ask why Kim Mulkey - who could have pretty much any open job she wanted - continues to work to support this evil organization?

Why is this an evil organization? To be very honest, the vast majority of these Title IX lawsuits are ambulance chasing money grabs. All you have to do is file a lawsuit and make an allegation, regardless of its merit, and Joe Public assumes that the statements contained are factual. Therefore, schools usually try to settle them quickly regardless of whether or not they are valid claims. Title IX was NEVER intended to be used in this manner.

I think it is wise to stay away from terms like "worst" as it relates to an entire program. But it is quite instructive to look at how schools react to the terrible excesses that go on at many institutions. Baylor's handling of the Art Briles mess was abysmal, and this newest lawsuit seems to be further proof that the leaders of the school value their sports programs over the safety of women on campus. Florida St. did not distinguish itself in the Jameis Winston case. Penn St. had the Rene Portland problem long before anyone knew about Jerry Sandusky. Harvard and Brown have been mentioned for higher rape numbers in large part because they have been proactive in improving the conditions for reporting. The problems are everywhere, the solutions are very difficult, but if there is any chance of addressing them it has to be done in the light of day. And in this regard Baylor continues to be one of the darkest places around.

The problem is that there exists a criminal justice system to handle criminal offenses. Title IX is now being used as a money grab second chance at the apple.

I think it is wise to stay away from terms like "worst" as it relates to an entire program. But it is quite instructive to look at how schools react to the terrible excesses that go on at many institutions. Baylor's handling of the Art Briles mess was abysmal, and this newest lawsuit seems to be further proof that the leaders of the school value their sports programs over the safety of women on campus. Florida St. did not distinguish itself in the Jameis Winston case. Penn St. had the Rene Portland problem long before anyone knew about Jerry Sandusky. Harvard and Brown have been mentioned for higher rape numbers in large part because they have been proactive in improving the conditions for reporting. The problems are everywhere, the solutions are very difficult, but if there is any chance of addressing them it has to be done in the light of day. And in this regard Baylor continues to be one of the darkest places around.

The problem is that there exists a criminal justice system to handle criminal offenses. Title IX is now being used as a money grab second chance at the apple.

That's a red herring ... the issue isn't how this is being investigated or pursued, but what's actually happening. ICYMI, here's the July 13 ESPN story ...

the vast majority of these Title IX lawsuits are ambulance chasing money grabs. All you have to do is file a lawsuit and make an allegation, regardless of its merit, and Joe Public assumes that the statements contained are factual. Therefore, schools usually try to settle them quickly regardless of whether or not they are valid claims. Title IX was NEVER intended to be used in this manner.

This is exactly correct. The plaintiffs is these "Title IX lawsuits" are not interested in criminal justice against some defendant; they are interested in a big settlement payday from the university, of which about 40% will go to a venal plaintiff's lawyer.

Like most things, these abusive Title IX lawsuits have a complicated legal history, which virtually no one is aware of and has no interest in understanding. They just read the click bait headlines and react emotionally.

I'll try to give some brief history.

Based on a now debunked study that said that one in every five females on college campuses suffers a sexual assault, the Obama administration's Department of Education in 2011, based on no specific Congressional authority, issued a "Dear Collegue" letter to all schools that threatened to cut off all their federal funding unless they implemented a complex system of investigating and punishing sexual assaults.

Specifically as to private schools, like Baylor, the letter also effectively required that the suspect males shall have NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS -- no right to confront or cross-examine the accuser, no right to see the evidence against him, no right to see the school's investigative report, and no real way to challenge the conclusions. Therefore, the suspect males have the burden to affirmatively prove their innocence, in a virtually impossible way, against even the flimsiest and phoniest allegation of sexual assault. The accused in a private university can almost never win.

A Yale law professor wrote a scholarly article in 2016 attacking this Title IX abuse by the 2011 Obama DOE policy and the resulting Star Chamber "investigations" by colleges:

Apart from the complete denial of due process to these accused male students at private universities under the 2011 Obama DOE rules, a more recent study by Obama's own DOJ in 2014 found that sexual assaults on campus only happen to about 1 in 51 females, which is less frequently than such assaults off campus.

Tufts University tried to resist applying these anti-Constitutional investigatory requirements, but quickly folded when the Obama DOE wrote a letter threatening imminent termination of all federal funds to Tufts.

Trump's new DOE has expressed serious concern about these sexual assault accusation and investigation abuses, but hasn't yet decided what to do:

These lawsuits want big money damages from the private schools for the alleged failure to follow the 2011 Obama DOE investigation guidelines. They want to force a monetary settlement for the accuser and her lawyer for alleged procedural errors, not to impose criminal penalties on the putative assaulter. The tactic is to scare the university into a settlement on pain of losing federal money for not following the 2011 DOE requirements. For example, if the private university gave the accused male student fundamental due process rights in the investigation, this would be a "violation" of Title IX in the Alice in Wonderland world of these lawsuits.

Note that accused male students in public universities must be given Constitutional due process rights, so private school accused students are treated extremely differently and much more harshly by the 2011 Obama DOE rules/threats than public school accused students. This is surely one reason why there appear to be more of these suits against private schools, like Baylor, than against public schools. The accused in a public school must be given Constitutional protections in these investigations, and hence they are found innocent by school investigators much more frequently than at private universities.

Finally, none of what I or anyone else has written about these Title IX investigatory and lawsuit abuses is intended to deny or diminish the horror of actual sexual assaults on any campus. They do exist. And they should be investigated by professional police agencies, not by frightened and bullied academics.

I'll continue to maintain that female victims are treated unfairly because schools have a vested interest in sweeping incidents under the rug and therefore do a lousy job of investigating and adjudicating sexual assaults. Now you've provided information, about which I was previously unaware, that alleged perpetrators are treated unfairly due to Title IX fallout from the original process. Note that our positions are not mutually exclusive. I don't think there's any question that sexual assault investigations are best conducted by unbiased police depts.

Police have a responsibility to investigate potential criminal cases. That is not exclusive nor does it supplant the University's own responsibility to discipline students and staff and to maintain a safe environment for education.

This "leave it to the police" nonsense evinces a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of law enforcement and the always attendant parrallel responsibilities of the criminal and the civil/administrative processes.

It is not the job of law enforcement to enforce student disciplinary codes. And not every offense meriting discipline warrants criminal prosecution.

But for me, the biggest issue is the treatment of women here and all over the world. Any light that can be shed on how men discount assaults on women is not only important but absolutely necessary.

If the United States, a leader in women's rights in many ways, will not credit or protect its young women when they are away from home for the first time, what chance is there to stop honor killings, genital mutilation and the other horrors perpetrated on women worldwide?

If the United States, a leader in women's rights in many ways, will not credit or protect its young women when they are away from home for the first time, what chance is there to stop honor killings, genital mutilation and the other horrors perpetrated on women worldwide?

I understand what you are saying. However, even espn often has an angle that they are pursuing. For instance, just last week they published an article on espnW with the headline EX AUBURN SOFTBALL PLAYER ALLEGES SEXUAL HARASSMENT

What they don't tell the reader is that the sexual harassment alleged did not happen to the former player that filed the Title IX complaint with the campus Title IX office. Yesterday, in an interview, that same former player said this, and I quote: "most of my interactions were with Cory Myers and it was one of the main things about getting of the like sexual side and try to get people I guess to have a sexual relationship with you, is kind of be the gatekeeper. And he was always kind of the gatekeeper, even though I wasn't ever getting in games he was like 'oh you'll get it next week' and it was everything that worked for him was kind of like a way for me to get on the team. So, in the future I could see for him to be like "to do this, you know, if you have relations with me".

This Title IX complaint therefore is based on what she says she "could see...in the future.?"

Its important to note that Corey Myers was forced to resign due to his inappropriate, although consensual, relationship with another student athlete. However, that student athlete wants nothing to do with this and claims that she was not harassed in any way.

My point is that its all a hot mess, but should have nothing to do with Title IX. Title IX has been responsible for many great things, including the explosive growth in women's sports. If we keep cheapening it by using it in ways that were never intended, there is a real danger that it will one day be repealed altogether.

This is directly about the abuse of young women on college campuses by Power 5 athletes and coaches, and indirectly about a world that, even in the most advanced places, systematically oppresses and degrades women.

This is directly about the abuse of young women on college campuses by Power 5 athletes and coaches, and indirectly about a world that, even in the most advanced places, systematically oppresses and degrades women.

I agree that this is not a Title IX issue, but the situation is not limited to athletes and coaches. The same issues around being raped and reporting it to the school happen whether the victim is a point guard or violinist, and whether the rapist is a star quarterback or drunken frat boy.

If you are confused about why she stays at Baylor, it means you don't know Kim Mulkey. Look at her history and attitude. Oh and she is not that good of a coach;

Sure... she isn't that good of a coach..... okie dokie

I did not say she wasn't a good coach. It probably could have been phrased better by just stating that she is over rated. She and a lot of WCBB coaches got their reputations during a time when the quality of coaches was not at the level it is now. Because of variable factors the level of coaching through out WCBB has risen and the bar for good in comparison to elite has been raised. A lot of the earlier coaches are able to maintain their programs on a high level not so much by their coaching ability but the reputation of the program to attract top level recruits. However, I would never equate Mulkey with a Vivian Stringer. Now there is an example of a bad coach who was exposed once her line up no longer was filled with Blue Chippers. Although it took multiple years of underachieving with loaded rosters to do that. Other coaches like Mulkey ( in my opinion ) are still being very successful but not to the level they once were and will continue to slid in comparison as other programs rise. While this was once true, Mulkey is no longer in the very top tier of coaches.

In respect to the tread subject, it isn't surprising that coaches would often treat their programs like parents covering for their children's miss-behavior. Both often have a double standard when it comes to applying ethics to their children and everyone else. I believe that was the case with Joe Paterno in respect to the Penn States football programs part in the scandal. When it comes to protecting your children people are very prone to compartmentalizing their ethics. For coaches who have built a program it is not unusual for them to go all out in an effort to protect what they perceive as their creation.

While this was once true, Mulkey is no longer in the very top tier of coaches.

Ummm, yaa....she is. Unless your definition of 'top tier' is based on something other than:
1. Consistent success in their respective conferences
2. Consistent success on the national scene
3. Ability to consistently recruit top talent.

While this was once true, Mulkey is no longer in the very top tier of coaches.

Ummm, yaa....she is. Unless your definition of 'top tier' is based on something other than:
1. Consistent success in their respective conferences
2. Consistent success on the national scene
3. Ability to consistently recruit top talent.

Actually my definition is based on something else. There are many coaches who have at one time fit the criteria you listed. As I have often stated in other posts the standard for WCBB coaches has risen from what it was in the past. There are many more good coaches coaching womens teams. Where one stands is reflective of who you are compared to.

Mulkey, along with many other successful coaches, got in on the ground floor when Women's programs were just expanding. As did Vivian Stringer. She at one time would have also fit your criteria and I doubt may people would consider her even a good coach.

I also stated that there is much more competition today , not only in respect to on the court but in recruiting as well. A coach that established their programs would be able to ride their reputations and the lure of their programs for quite some time. Now Mulkey, unlike Stringer, is a good coach and has the premier established program in talent rich Texas. That gives Baylor a distinct advantage as the in state draw for talent rich Texas.. So under those conditions a good ( not elite ) coach should be able to meet your criteria through out their career.

To me a top tier coach would "TODAY" be able to begin at scratch and transform a reputation-less mediocre program into one that fits your criteria in less than 5 years. Even considering it is far more difficult to do so today than it was in the less competitive past.

Now there are presently a few coaches who either have done so or appear to be capable of doing so. It is my opinion that Mulkey, once you remove her built in advantages, would not be capable of doing so. She might possess the basketball know-how, but her personality would end up self destructing her agenda.

That is my criteria of a top tier coach. My standards are stricter than yours so my list would be obviously shorter. Mulkey wouldn't make my cut. A lot of other coaches that some might consider elite might not make my list either.

While this was once true, Mulkey is no longer in the very top tier of coaches.

Ummm, yaa....she is. Unless your definition of 'top tier' is based on something other than:
1. Consistent success in their respective conferences
2. Consistent success on the national scene
3. Ability to consistently recruit top talent.

Actually my definition is based on something else. There are many coaches who have at one time fit the criteria you listed. As I have often stated in other posts the standard for WCBB coaches has risen from what it was in the past. There are many more good coaches coaching womens teams. Where one stands is reflective of who you are compared to.

Mulkey, along with many other successful coaches, got in on the ground floor when Women's programs were just expanding. As did Vivian Stringer. She at one time would have also fit your criteria and I doubt may people would consider her even a good coach.

I also stated that there is much more competition today , not only in respect to on the court but in recruiting as well. A coach that established their programs would be able to ride their reputations and the lure of their programs for quite some time. Now Mulkey, unlike Stringer, is a good coach and has the premier established program in talent rich Texas. That gives Baylor a distinct advantage as the in state draw for talent rich Texas.. So under those conditions a good ( not elite ) coach should be able to meet your criteria through out their career.

To me a top tier coach would "TODAY" be able to begin at scratch and transform a reputation-less mediocre program into one that fits your criteria in less than 5 years. Even considering it is far more difficult to do so today than it was in the less competitive past.

Now there are presently a few coaches who either have done so or appear to be capable of doing so. It is my opinion that Mulkey, once you remove her built in advantages, would not be capable of doing so. She might possess the basketball know-how, but her personality would end up self destructing her agenda.

That is my criteria of a top tier coach. My standards are stricter than yours so my list would be obviously shorter. Mulkey wouldn't make my cut. A lot of other coaches that some might consider elite might not make my list either.

If you are basing your criteria as being able to start from scratch and build a top program, are you also taking into consideration the amount work it would take and how a person can adjust/change the way they coach and approach people/players/fans/parents/etc., to develop a program, or are you just assuming they person will be as they are now with the current program they are at. As it has been seen many times coaches have to change and adjust to the setting in which they are into be successful, some coaches can and some can't, but are you just assuming coaches can't and they drops them out of your "top tier" or do you believe the coaches you have dropped can't adapt if they need to. Just because a coach is one way in their current system based on their current surrounding doesn't mean they can't adapt. You see great assistant coaches at Power 5 conferences become great head coaches at mid majors because they understand they need to change and adjust, they can't treat the program at the mid major the same as they would a Power 5, and then you also have great assistant coaches at Power 5 conferences become bad coaches at mid majors because they try to treat the program like a Power 5 program and it's not and they end up losing fans and players because the strategy isn't the same. And typically a lot of the coaches that aren't able to make the adjustment are coaches people have talked about as being the next big coach (relatively speaking of course) or the most ready to take over a program. I haven't put much thought into which head coaches or assistant coaches would be able to adapt and which ones would not be, but I'm assuming that is part of your thought process as well since you are pointing out that you use it to determine your tiers of coaching.

Mulkey, along with many other successful coaches, got in on the ground floor when Women's programs were just expanding. As did Vivian Stringer. She at one time would have also fit your criteria and I doubt may people would consider her even a good coach.

Mulkey and Stringer started their head coaching careers 28 years apart. They aren't the same era at all. C Viv came along in coaching well before there was a ground floor and is one of the people who built it. Mulkey started as a player a decade after C Viv started coaching.